Re: Aberdeen Study on OS RDBMS: exceprts and - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

* Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> wrote:

<snip>
> I don't think that is necessary. People don't see it as an integrated
> package as those items simply do not exist within the postgresql.org
> realm.
>
> Goto postgresql.org and it takes a fair amount of work to find pgadmin
> (downloads -- but you still don't know what it is), GIS, or others.

Probably we should additionally offer an large packaged distribution
incl. admin tools and some other stuff. This could be auto-generated
by some shellscripts. Just to make some people happy ;-)

<snip>
> Contrast to Gnome, which many consider integrated despite being equally
> small packages that make individual releases.
> - Single FTP Site with all tarballs coinciding with recent release --
> they're all individual, but it is a complete set of official packages
> - Single place to report a bug
> - Single location to find out about releases
> - Consolidated release notes for all the most recent release of
> sub-components
> - Single source repository
Well, most more complex admin tools / frontends I know are not really
limited to postgresql and so probably like to be own projects.
For example phppgadmin is developed for pgsql, but also usable for
other RDBMS by just adding another DB driver class (already has several
drivers for several pgsql versions).

Since I'm currently working on an own branch of that (i.e. now completely
template based, fixing some session problems, moving away from frames
and jscript dependencies, adding postmaster administration)
and the main developer(s) of the official branch expressed to have no
interest in my work, I'm thinking about completely forking off.
I'm also now talking w/ the developer of ibwebadmin (4 interbase)
about migrating both projects together.

If there're some more people interested in my works, then why not
putting it into postgresql.org ?

> - Package system (FreeBSD anyway) has packages like 'gnome2',
> 'gnome2-lite', 'gnome2-power-tools', 'gnome-fifth-toe' which are empty
> packages with plenty of dependencies (those in the know can install
> individial components -- those who don't know get a functional desktop
> with some things they may not use installed)
ah, packaging is a hard job. I dont think it really belongs to the
main project itself. But the main project of course should supply enough
(machine reable) information for the packagers, i.e. some kind of markup
describing which modules a package contains of, which variants/features
can be built and what depencies this implies.

I'm currently working on an almost 100% automated buildfarm, which shall
be fed with such an markup.

cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops --
---------------------------------------------------------------------